Megan Leslie

[Ethics, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservatives refuse to answer simple questions.

During question period on Friday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities revealed that Senator Duffy and the Prime Minister spoke about his expenses in February.

Would the government tell us how long they spoke and who else was involved?

[Ethics, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that was not actually a very difficult question, but they do not seem to have understood. Let us try again.

Can the government tell us whether the RCMP has contacted the Prime Minister's Office since last week?

[Ethics, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, does the government believe it is appropriate to pay severance to a disgraced employee who resigned from the Prime Minister's Office?

[Ethics, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are still refusing to answer questions about a possible cover-up directed by the PMO. They can spin all they want, but all they are showing is that they cannot answer basic questions.

This morning we learned that Senator Bert Brown claimed $43,000 in travel expenses for the quarter in which the last federal election was held. Do the Conservatives consider it appropriate for a senator to use taxpayers' money to travel during an election?

[Ethics, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats have asked straightforward questions, but we have not received straight answers from the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister went from full support of Mr. Wright to accepting his resignation. He declared Mr. Wright's actions honourable and then said that he should have told him sooner.

Could the Prime Minister now tell us why, in his opinion, Nigel Wright was wrong?

[World Oceans Day, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, happy World Oceans Day. Our oceans play a hugely important role in keeping us healthy and happy, and they are vital to our economy, particularly for our coastal regions. World Oceans Day, originally proposed by Canada in 1992, will be celebrated this year on June 8, and preceded by a week of events.

Next week I hope the government will finally table a credible plan to protect our oceans. A credible plan would address the impacts of climate change, rising sea level and air pollutants; preventing ocean acidification and its impact on marine ecosystems; declining fish stocks, worth billions of dollars to Canada's economy; and the increase in Canada's marine-protected areas, from the current 1% to our international obligation of 10%. I am hopeful for this plan, but under the Conservatives with their track record on environment, I am not optimistic.

The reality is that climate change does not respect borders. Damage to our oceans has international repercussions. World Oceans Day offers the opportunity to reflect on how Canada can take that necessary leadership to effect positive change at the global level.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 28th, 2013]

With regard to fossil fuels: (a) who has overall responsibility within the government for monitoring and reporting on Canada’s progress against the G-20 commitment to rationalize inefficient fossil fuel subsidies; and (b) what steps has the government taken to ensure that support of the fossil fuel sector is not contradicting or impeding policy objectives related to the environment and sustainable development?

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first, the member for Selkirk—Interlake mischaracterized my position a little when he alleged that I said the bill was unwarranted. I did not say anything of that nature. However, I am looking forward to seeing the evidence that is out there to say we need the bill, and I am looking forward to hearing that at committee.

The bill would make explicit the fact that the review board needs to take into consideration public safety, which is the paramount consideration. I want to know if the boards are not already making public safety the paramount consideration. I have read the Criminal Code, and I think it says so explicitly. However, even if it did not, one would assume that would be the paramount consideration. Therefore, how would Bill C-54 actually do anything different?

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

I was.

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation proposes to make it explicit that the review boards need to take public safety into account in their decision-making. However, when I go back to the Criminal Code, which talks about dispositions from a court or review board, it says that, in fact, the review board needs to take into consideration the need to protect the public from dangerous persons.

I do not understand even what this legislation does. How is this actually anything new, and where is the evidence that we actually need to have another provision saying to take into account public safety? I do not know if my colleague will have any answers to this, but where is the evidence that this needs to be done, and how is this different?